User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170428004547: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Those are not the rules. There is ''no such rule'' that states "if something is weird, you'll have to prove that it still counts or else it'll be invalid forever." Indeed, a ''lack of reasoning to call it invalid'' basically makes it valid. | Those are not the rules. There is ''no such rule'' that states "if something is weird, you'll have to prove that it still counts or else it'll be invalid forever." Indeed, a ''lack of reasoning to call it invalid'' basically makes it valid. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
Indeed I also feel sorry that we have repeated ourselves several times, although I'm not sure I support your slightly accusing tone. I have listened, and I disagree. Those aren't our rules, as I have said ''since the beginning.'' | Indeed I also feel sorry that we have repeated ourselves several times, although I'm not sure I support your slightly accusing tone. I have listened, and I disagree. Those aren't our rules, as I have said ''since the beginning.'' | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170428004547-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:50, 27 April 2023
Those are not the rules. There is no such rule that states "if something is weird, you'll have to prove that it still counts or else it'll be invalid forever." Indeed, a lack of reasoning to call it invalid basically makes it valid.
There is no place on this website where such a rule is written down, and in this thread when you have made this case I have always disputed this. If there is no strong case for something to be invalid, then it is valid.
Indeed I also feel sorry that we have repeated ourselves several times, although I'm not sure I support your slightly accusing tone. I have listened, and I disagree. Those aren't our rules, as I have said since the beginning.
